Category Archives: Thoughts

Why Isolationism Is Completely Detrimental

Where does one draw the line between healthy nationalism (belonging, memories of one’s upbringing, culture, traditions, spirituality) and its potential toxic effects? The latter can range from a sense of superiority compared to other countries to a sense of entitlement (the US for instance) or even blatant racism, xenophobia and other types of bigotry.

Most people, I infer (and see in everyday life) are somewhere in the middle, enjoying the positive, harmless aspects associated with nationalism and at least frowning upon a radical view.

There is, however, a growing trend towards isolationism in the West, especially as an opposition to adverse cultural aspects found in certain minority communities. My sole intent is to extrapolate on this as a general idea, which I dare think applies well enough.

Travelling and meeting people from all corners of the Earth is the most efficient transformation a human being can experience, from being self-centred and presumably all-knowing, to being humble and accepting of others.

There is no reason why one should not be able to enjoy their cultural specifics without turning into an apologist for cultural superiority and moral hegemony (which is religiously-inspired in many countries where faith is the main drive of what is accepted morality).

Moreover, though many think that because the availability of information is such a plus nowadays (and it is), they can gain an objective perspective of life in other countries with a single click. The fact is that most reporting is biased, focused on what the purpose of said reporting is. There are many different realities in each country and each one either under-represented or over-represented, according to the bias and ultimate objective of the media outlet doing the reporting.

We are all limited in our knowledge and experience, and seeking certain sources of information may very well solidify certain biases.

Whereas one can never get the full perspective on the world, they can very well try, and try to do so in an objective manner.

Ironically, although countries and by default their citizens were separated in the past by more restrictions on travelling (or the physical difficulty of it, which is no longer an issue) isolationism and “othering” seem to be more prevalent nowadays, when the media reaches nearly every home and every person in the West (and I’m including the alternative media here).

The end goal seems to be a major clash, violent perhaps. Unless it’s avoided by people’s realism and why not, humanity.


Nosferatu Eats The Daily Mail

In case the title reads a bit odd, the comparison between the mythical un-dead and avid consumers of this publication seems increasingly warranted. In this section of the food chain, Nosferatu gorges on Daily Mail articles, in his unsatisfied craving to in fact consume other humans – and it, in turn, gorges on the small remnants of his brain, without which it could not survive. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

The far-right press, for some time, has had to at least nudge its audience in order to draw out racist, xenophobic or generally spiteful attitudes in relation to an event. That is no longer the case, apparently.

Its faithful disciples exhale contempt to the point of no longer seeing beyond their fixations, regardless of what the discussion centres on.

Gentrification has been intensely discussed in recent weeks, after the tragic fire which engulfed Grenfell Tower in London, as a result of the disparity between the very rich and poorer residents of the area. After an announcement was made that survivors would be housed in flats they wouldn’t ordinarily be able to afford, some people’s reactions were indeed very surprising and reminiscent of past centuries, rather than our current year.

It’s not often that the worst manifestations of snobbery are freely displayed in an open space, giving the values the west pretends to espouse. In this case, it occurred in the most unexpected of circumstances, namely the imperious need to rehouse victims of a fire as soon as possible.

“My service charge bill – and it’s a low one this year – is £15,500. I would feel really resentful if someone got the same thing for free. I feel sorry for those people but my husband and I work very hard to be able to afford this. And for someone to get it for free, I would move.”

One has to wonder what is, concretely, being done to this woman. How would her fine life be affected exactly? How would it benefit her if she left her home? The only conclusion is that A, the insult is so extraordinary her mind cannot cope with it, or/and B, she can only mingle with her own social stratum, even if no one would actually force her to mingle but merely to breathe the same air, from a comfortable distance.

And if one does give her the benefit of the doubt for feeling some injustice because of her hard work, by reading subsequent comments one sees without a doubt that some people do, in this day and age, simply refuse to mingle with those who are not as rich as them. These are people who benefited from higher education, who presumably traveled around and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. And yet, all these possibilities were not enough for them to fully develop as sentient human beings. Sifting through the comments was fairly disturbing yet sobering at the same time.

All these comments scream “those people are lower than us; we know them to a tee; they are a different breed and do not deserve to breathe the same oxygen as we do”.

  1. I’m sure the residents of these super-posh developments are just itching to take in a large, loud black mama JUST like Diane Abbott! Wait ’til they all start playing their music loudly and their kids make loads of noise! Watch the fallout!

2. I fear the entitlement attitude will only get worse due to constantly having those in the media and socialist left that everyone is equal. Housing such people in these luxury apartments will end in tears as they become more and more disconnected  from a community than bears no resemblance to their background  or social position, alienating both the private and social housing occupants.

Translation: they will alienate the rich just by existing in their proximity, as they are a different species. Apparently, there is no chance under the sun that people can coexist in the same building unobtrusively or get along very well in this situation.

3. It has nothing to do with not having as much money, that is so simplistic. It is to do with these people not sharing in the same culture background. Many can hardly speak English, many are Asylum seekers, refugees and worse still illegal immigrants, who come from third world countries who will be living next door to people who are paying for the privilege of living in such an area. Surely everyone when buying a home eventually choose a home by doing research on an area, types of neighbors, crime rates etc…And it appears it’s wrong that one should want to be able to choose when they’re spending money out of their own pocket.

Needless to say, these are pure assumptions. The only thing this person knows for sure is they were paying a lower rent and were not as well-off as the other residents of the area. Which by definition must mean all of the above, in their view.

4.To put it simply this Country is overloaded with immigrants to the point where the identity of white British people has and continues to be wiped out. Therefore its time all immigration was halted for the time being to allow the rightful owners, the white British people to recover their numbers.

Using an event of this type, corroborated with racial stereotyping, in order to rant about immigration.

5. To people who are criticising this woman including this radio person.  What would you say if all of these moved in next door to you for free?  Nothing at all, and you would welcome them?  Yeah right!
6.They are deserving to be rehoused permanently in suitably sized accommodation, but not necessarily in the same Borough ….. in any Borough where there is accommodation and where social housing rents are similar to Grenfell.  Otherwise, who’s going to take up the slack with the substantial increase in rent for Kensington Row?  The public purse of course and not just for a few months, but permanently.
Which is not even the case, but never mind. This obsession with preventing a group of people from – Heaven forbid – living in accommodation which is “too good for them” is truly disturbing, as if it were done on a national scale.

7. Where is the heart – to have true heart you need to be able to understand that not all people are the same or equal, this does not mean they are not entitled or should not receive compassion, empathy and a caring approach to help re-build their lives again, but by suggesting we are all the same, when “realistically and logically” we are not, demonstrates we have a long way to go before we resolve the real problems and issues in our country.

8. Because £15.5k per annum is the going rate for service charges.  A block I know in SW11 charges £18,500 p.a. – that’s for 24 hr concierge, private refuse collection, someone at Reception all day to take parcels in for the residents and ensure no stranger just walks into the building, gardener, maintenance,  and many other services. Are you suggesting that the Grenfell people should also get this service?  You cannot be serious …… for what reason?  It is divisive to promote a better standard of living for migrants who have not yet contributed to the Exchequer above your own population.

9. And after years of working for very wealthy people I learned this:  Wealthy people want to be amongst other wealthy people only. They do not want to be part of a mixed socio-economic try-out ,especially at such close quarters which I believe would be next door to their prestigious apartment block.  Why do you think such prestigious blocks are built in expensive areas such as W14 in the first place?  Shelagh Fogarty is being more than usually dim.  Let’s not mix up the personal tragedies suffered by people from Grenfell with their eligibility to live in Kensington Row.

“Eligibility to live…”  Perhaps this person would admit they were not “eligible” to live in a death trap, but for Heaven’s sake, not “eligible” to move ranks that much! These people seem so sure of themselves, when nothing is guaranteed in life, not even the continuation of life itself, not even for one day. They must not spend an awful lot of time contemplating how short life is and what really matters at the end of the day.

10.This has nothing to do with people shouting racist or snobbery, but can we truly alter the demographics of a whole country, small community culture beyond all recognition where people who have worked to be able to choose where they want to live, the type of community they want to live in, the type of people they feel they relate, share the same values, outlook and commonality with. I find many people overlook the fact that many communities are being changed so much, than when the media film or interview people the community could easily be a third world shanty town. This is fact, NOT a ridicule of the people, we all revert to who and where we come from, and you cannot change an Asylum seeker’s or illegal immigrants background, the way they live by installing them in a luxury flat in Kensington.

The issue to this individual doesn’t seem to be the one at hand, which is a crisis, but somehow, as a goal in and of itself, to transform those people, making them suitable for a posh area. You just can’t make some of this stuff up.

11. Totally agree with the lady on the phone. I don’t even understand why the poor are living in the most expensive districts of the country. The past generations must have sold the right to live there for £££’s. Just being born in an area doesn’t automatically entitle you with the right to live there.

Paraphrasing someone who replied, partly to serve the rich, who might be forced to wipe their own behinds in every way, were it not for the poor who provide them with needed services. Of course, one might argue the poor can always commute. They don’t have to live, what an outrageous notion, right under those snooty noses. They spoil the view.

Although to think of it, the acrid comments were still more polite than those of these thoughtful readers, renowned for their intellectual capacity, since they read The Sun.

Another suggestion might be to build a new block of flats where the ruins once stood and then decant them all back although I wouldn’t like to see the state of some of the luxury flats then.

What’s wrong with trailer parks, certainly an upgrade to a bombed out piece of rubble in the desert.

These people have basically won the lottery, they’ll never have to work again and all the rules no longer seem to apply to them.

Out of pity for the laptop I might vomit on I will stop pasting quotes, undecided which ones were more despicable – the pure venom written by intellectually challenged individuals or the cynicism and snobbery of the well-to-do.

You might wonder what is wrong with these people. Is there something in their water?


YouTube Demonetisation: Right Wing Snowflake Hypocrisy

In light of the new hysteria regarding the earnings of “professional YouTubers” with a right-leaning discourse, some things just need to be said, and pardon the occasional lack of politeness, as this is largely coming from the – still unflinching – Trump bandwagon.

Though I should probably start with the facts versus feelings trope, used by them when convenient but cast aside when it comes to the legal framework they agreed to when starting their careers, I will do so with a parallel which really gets on my nerves.

This is presented as an injustice striking content creators deemed undesirable by the YouTube platform, based only on their political opinions. The retraction of an opportunity they once took when the selection criteria for monetisation were more loose, thus allowing them to express their views freely – and a lucrative one, for a number of years.

I hate to sound pretentious when mentioning karma, but I do wonder how loud their protesting voices were when innocent workers and students were threatened with swift exclusion from the US after Trump’s attempted immigration ban. Didn’t their livelihoods, threatened at the unexpected, mere stroke of a pen, matter at all?

If governments are allowed to turn people’s lives upside-down by excluding them unfairly, overnight, is it immoral for a private company in a capitalist country to do the same?

Obviously, I’m not fully comparing the endangering of a hobby-turned-job, of people who are fully able to get a real one, to the complete upturning of immigrants’ lives. I’m only pointing out the queasiness of their lamentation for what qualifies as a uniquely first world problem, and a shallow one at that. Especially when that lamentation comes after their support, vocal or tacit, of said draconian policies.

Or how about the hard working, tax paying illegal immigrants, suddenly hunted down in the hundreds and thousands, to the point of being afraid to leave their homes, after being accepted by previous administrations with check-ins and the likes?

The Trump administration “restructured”. So did YouTube. So they want support, compassion, righteous indignation. Where was theirs, for the masses of people whose livelihoods were swiftly taken from them, or the ones living in constant fear? The message of most Trump supporting YouTube careerists was not even suck it up or life is tough; it was absent, tacitly complicit, if not giddy, considering the constant, though abstract, lauding of ‘tightening the borders’, as a concept, with no regard towards individuals . While the mainstream media, as corrupt as it is, did cover the real struggles of real individuals (human beings, not statistics) during these changes, they were silent.

The human suffering brought on by these policies is impossible to ignore. As repelled as one can be by the term ‘privilege’ when exaggeratedly used by progressives, this approach, honestly, reeks of it.

Content creators posting certain views on YouTube, upon creating an account, were aware YouTube was owned by Google, a company with declared liberal values. Hence they knowingly have been taking advantage of permissive rules in what they knew was an ideologically adverse environment. They took the opportunity.

So did, far more daringly, those who moved to a country where they knew they were not fully wanted. The conundrum and scale of the loss cannot be compared by any standards.

I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

How does it feel to be suddenly unwanted, cast aside, after making an honest existence on the same terms for years?

Of course, YouTubers still have options; plenty of them. The people shoved from a country they’d made their home do not.




Right-wing Pro-Brexit Hypocrisy: Ignoring Scotland’s Will For Independence

Long title, concise and annoying reality.

If you frequent platforms claimed to be based on free speech, nationalism and the free determination of a nation’s fate, you might’ve come across articles, videos and memes proclaiming “the UK has taken its independence back from the European Union”.

Moreover, if you are not based in the UK, you might not be aware that only England and Wales overwhelmingly voted for Brexit, whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against it (in Scotland, this being the dominant vote).

Where is Scotland’s right to self-determination in this equation, where the promoters of Brexit are concerned?

The irony would be far less poignant if this weren’t about self-determination in the first place. Apparently, some are so happy to start lowering the coffin of the European Union they keep circulating material which portrays the whole of the UK going in the same direction, although they know this not to be the state of affairs.

Some understand better than others that the current fascination with the far-right and dismantling the EU is, at a popular level, not only rooted in opposition to Brussels dominating countries financially, but in the desire to close the borders and limit freedom of movement, as well as purge countries of foreigners.

Although doubtlessly, there are many who want this change for purely administrative reasons, kick all these foreigners out is a venial drive for a lot of people, especially in England. Fervid Trump supporters, in Europe or the US (or elsewhere) seem to share this obsession with isolationism, some claiming “Scotland is the new Sweden”, in terms of the leftist political direction it seems to be taking.

They fully ignore, however, the fact that in recent decades, many people have built their lives around the freedom of movement they took for granted, as if it would always be there. Things have gone way too far to be radically changed now, without turning the lives of individuals completely upside-down. Matters are no longer as simple as “just close the borders again”.

Nationalism in Scotland is different that its counterpart in other European countries, in terms of not being rooted in right-wing isolationism.

It is a separate and unique phenomenon.

It is, nonetheless, nationalism – in its true meaning, which is not by default associated with conservative politics.



The Role Model Complex – “I Was Once Like You”

A good way of differentiating between assholes and decent people is their use of their life experience – whilst decent folks, after going through a string of successes but also failures, tend to become more tempered and humble, assholes who manage to improve their condition develop an arrogance which escalates into bigotry.

Despising those who live in poverty after having risen out of it yourself is generally frowned upon, and for good reason. The same principle applies to any disadvantage one can think of, from lacking resources to being duped by a political ideology out of naivety.

In other words, the I used to be you and now I’m much better mentality.

In my view, a decent person is likely to regard anyone in their previous situation with more understanding and compassion, as they have an insight into where the person is at that point in time, in that particular aspect of their life. An asshole, on the other hand, will gloat, claiming the other is weak and should just follow their example in order to get out of their pathetic state (which might only be that bad in the eye of the beholder).

Recently, I stumbled upon a blog post which got me thinking about the times we live in.

Having been fat himself in the past, a blogger took the time to observe an unknown woman’s food preferences in public, to then shame her on the internet. Appalled by the overweight stranger he spotted in a restaurant, he took note of what she and her friends were eating, later writing he regretted his camera hadn’t been up to the job, to capture the food on the table, apparently enough for an entire battalion. By sheer coincidence, the next day he spotted her again on the subway, showing photos of her night out to a friend (including of what she’d stuffed her face with, which was noted by our amateur detective as incriminating evidence).

He then followed her around; to his outrage, the bitch decided to get a sandwich (which was to be used as further proof of her unbelievable depravity). He then proceeded to photograph her in the street, as she was casually walking with her mates, unaware of being stalked or the public embarrassment this gentleman was preparing. It’s beside the point to mention she was only a bit bigger than average, which wouldn’t have warranted the words he wrote there.

The psychological aspect is truly disturbing. Focusing his attention on a complete stranger who was enjoying a night out, scrutinising her, following and photographing her with the precise intention of online shaming. He even mentions “I managed to get a picture when…” which means he was bent on doing this; it wasn’t just a spur-of-the-moment idea. Because, in his own words, he’s obsessed with overweight people due to his past, which apparently gives him the right to use innocent, unsuspecting folks in such ways in order to feel better about his achievement.

For some, I guess the hatred of their former selves is enough for them to project it onto everyone else, joining the ranks of bullies, and proudly so. Some people do it on a lower scale; I’ve seen formerly fat people tease others with the pretext of being well-meaning. I’ve even seen them lash out at others on this subject. But this is just too much; the entitlement is baffling.

It’s comparable to the SJW mentality of wanting every individual to perfectly fit into the mould they have designed, or else (the “else” being scorn and vitriol by the bucket). Although this guy is definitely anti-SJW, the drive is the same – an unhealthy obsession with negative feelings, past or present, whether they were caused by others or not, which generates universal mandates for them to formulate and spread with evangelical devotion.

To be honest, I don’t think these people are in a good place with their self-esteem, or they wouldn’t feel the need to do this.

This drive seems so deeply rooted it overshadows any concerns of inappropriateness, of behaviour that borders on illegal (in this case, chasing strangers to take their picture) or the lack of positive consequences their actions are likely to have.





What SJWs Call Sexual Harassment (Hilarious Though Quite Disturbing)

When a woman mentions being the victim of sexual harassment, unless she elaborates on it and her account is visibly exaggerated, one tends to believe her, out of the sheer belief that she would know how to differentiate that particular situation from others.

Nowadays, however, one has to be very cautious, as it seems some women (young in particular) are very confused about this notion.

The level of hysteria in the videos below has a hint of pathology, but it might as well be extreme entitlement, as well as the typical SJW attitude.

In the first situation, an SJW was filming an event based on people’s appraisal of how the local police were performing, looking for stories on police brutality or incompetence. There she came across a man who was appreciative of the job they had done helping his daughter, once addicted to drugs. A positive story didn’t sit well with her so she started verbally attacking this complete stranger. When aggressively asked for his name and unwilling to give it (for obvious reasons), he made one up on the spot, jokingly: Hugh Mungus (which is now an internet meme, thanks to said damsel). To that, she reacted hysterically, with shrieks, insults and accusations of sexual harassment, suspecting the man was alluding to his privates, which seems to be a traumatising crime even when said in a playful manner.

She had an absolute fit, insisting she was the victim of a sexual attack, then had a go at the security guards and police officers present for letting her “attacker” walk out the door. Amazingly, after leaving the place, she later pursued the case and attempted to make a formal complaint, as the second video shows.

Pathology might be involved of course, since she failed to realise that none of the people present (aside from a couple of fellow SJWs) interpreted the situation as she was. Perhaps it was more of an attempt to discredit the man (whom she kept referring to as a “sexual harasser” afterwards) to nullify his credibility because she didn’t like his pro-cop attitude.


The next one is a lady with an awfully SJW-ish rhetoric, accusing an innocent man of sexual harassment and racism for… saying hello to her in the street. She threatened to call the police as well because he had dared to address her, then fled when he threatened to do the same for her crazy behaviour (which anyone can see is far from normal).

Whereas one might think feminist articles referring to men approaching women as “street harassment” are just inconsequential drivel no one would take seriously, this seems to be the frightening result.

Every frustrated harpy out there can start making these serious accusations out of the blue and even follow through with her delusion.

Could Reincarnation Explain Transgenderism and the “Transabled”?

This is just a hypothesis and might be absolute bullshit, but bear with me (unless you dismiss reincarnation altogether).

The thing is, due to personal experience I had gone back and forth on due to religion (Christianity denies the possibility as far as I know), I fully believe in reincarnation now. And because of that I’ve been reading research which highlighted many cases – some of them involving people having been of the opposite sex in the past but knowing remarkable, identifiable details about who they believed to be their past selves and the ways they had died. Some were children. Of course there is no proof they had actually been those people as opposed to having known those people in the past so I’m not saying there is definite proof of migrating from one sex to another between lives.

And I’m in no way saying I think all those who are confused about their gender and bodies are necessarily right about it (perhaps they are just going through a phase and might reconsider), especially nowadays when this sort of thing is encouraged on a mass scale. And I’m in no way saying that should that be the case they should try to butcher their current bodies trying to make them into something they are not (that can be very dangerous and is irreversible should they change their minds).

I do think though that it is possible for their motivation to be a past self (a past life).

The “transabled” puzzle me even more.

For someone who is able-bodied it is naturally a frightening thought to lose some of their physical abilities as life is guaranteed to be more difficult and restraining. What I usually read in these cases is that the person feels a body part or ability does not belong to them. Also, I logically deduce they are not afraid of facing their existence while not having said body part or ability – as if they had managed it in the past.  This leads me to suspect they might have been disabled and are now mixed up about functioning in their current bodies. One lady wanted to be blind (and succeeded). To anyone who can see this is a terrifying prospect. Unless one has been blind before and can handle life as such, without fear.

Perhaps these people are trying to revert to their former selves.

Again, I am in no way saying physicians should indulge them by mutilating them. It is absolute craziness to “help” someone become impaired just because it feels more natural to them, regardless of what the cause might be. Surely healing the psychological/ emotional aspect and continuing to function in a healthier body would be much more beneficial.

I don’t know. It’s just an idea. Which I’m sure has been thrown out there before, though I haven’t come upon any material but haven’t exactly looked for it either.


Unpaid “Emotional Labour” – Feminists At It Again

Emotional labor is the exertion of energy for the purpose of addressing people’s feelings, making people comfortable, or living up to social expectations. It’s called “emotional labor” because it ends up using – and often draining – our emotional resources.

By their own  definition, addressing other people’s feelings is absolutely draining. This brilliant article  (irony intended) is eerily reminiscent of how a sociopath might view the world, a world in which most humans are at ease with the natural interaction they have with each other, yet a certain segment finds any emotional involvement a chore.

One could safely say most people naturally “invest” those “emotional resources” into interacting with others, aside from introspection, which is also mostly based on interpreting the experiences they’ve had with others. If they were to draw a line marking the point to which they are willing to “invest” these “resources” with anyone, family members included, what exactly would they be “saving up” for?

Now, don’t get me wrong: Asking friends for advice, reaching out to people in your line of work, and other actions I’m about to mention can be part of a healthy relationship. The issue arises when it’s not reciprocal.

OK. So it’s a bit like a transaction. You put in ten hours to help someone through an emotional crisis and then demand the same for whatever problem you might have. Or you might just make them listen to you for the same length of time just to make sure you got enough value out of the relationship.

No, it doesn’t work that way.

Sometimes people crush into your daily life badly needing a friendly ear or other types of help. Making an issue out of it (unless they are definitely using you or making your life truly unbearable) is just petty. And so is expecting someone going through a very difficult time to make a priority of your problems, just out of moral obligation.

Because we’re assumed to be naturally emotionally intelligent and nurturing, people don’t always understand that this is work for us.

No, it’s not. It’s a simple part of being human and a simple part of being female. We’re not assumed, but scientifically proven to be that way. Of course, to a progressive, everything that has already been proven about humans becomes an “assumption”, if it doesn’t coincide  with what they aspire to convince others of.

1. We are asked to watch, entertain, or help take care of younger siblings, cousins, and other children more than men because people automatically assume we must love kids and be naturally nurturing.

And because you are presumably able to communicate, you can always say no in a situation which makes you uncomfortable. But you’re afraid that would make you seem uncaring and bitchy, wouldn’t it? Can’t have it both ways.

2. Friends offload their problems – sometimes serious problems that we’re not equipped to handle – onto us before we have agreed to talk about them, often expecting an immediate response.

An adult can usually deal with the facts of life. An adult normally knows all kinds of things happen on this planet – and can at least handle hearing about them. Heaven forbid such a person might be trapped in a tragical situation such as a natural catastrophe or war – they think their comfort zone will be there forever and must be preserved at all cost, even by avoiding life outside their windows.

You might be surprised to hear that’s what friends are for – otherwise they would be referred to as mere acquaintances, not friends. And I’m not referring to FB friends either (though I’ve seen close friendships form online and experienced that as well). It’s a matter of trust and involvement. People confide in those they trust. It’s as simple as that. If you’re uncomfortable with that, you are simply not that person’s friend.

3. Casual acquaintances and sometimes complete strangers do the same, often over the Internet and often sharing triggering details.

That means they must be in a really bad place emotionally and you really should try to help (if you’re at all a decent human being). As for online interactions being triggering, well… keep off the internet, why don’t you. Or outright tell them in the information you are sharing that you’re not psychologically equipped to read certain words. By the way, if you’re on a platform which often involves that, do not be shocked when it happens.

4. Street harassers and other people who make us uncomfortable guilt us if we don’t respond to them. If we don’t say no, we’re supposedly asking for it. And f we do respond, we’re not “polite enough.”

If someone is actually harassing you, you can rest assured they don’t expect you to be polite. Or nice. If they’re giving you sudden unwanted attention, 99% of the time they are not expecting anything out of you either. Guilt presumes some sense of obligation one might feel – how does that apply to strangers in the street? Anyway – how is that draining your emotional resources again?

5. People who believe we can provide them with professional gain ask to “pick our brains” with no pay or reciprocation in the name of “networking.”

You’re free to say “no”.

Everyone I know who is a professional is more than happy to advise family, friends and acquaintances in terms of work without expecting anything back. They are, you know… happy to be helpful? Perhaps they feel good just for being in a position of pointing others on their path? Perhaps they’re just nice? Does that word exist anymore?

6. When we have relatives or friends with physical or mental illnesses, they and their loved ones are more likely to reach out to us than men to take care of them.

That is a delicate situation and depends on a lot of variables. One has to have a certain personality type (enough patience and kindness) to be able to do that. Selfish types with a perpetual victim complex are not likely to ever be asked, if one knows them well enough.

7. If we are in professions that involve interactions with people, those we serve expect us to act as their therapists.

Interactions with people…? As in what? Mc Donald’s could qualify for that, as well as any job in retail, hospitality, healthcare… you name it. Everything from medicine to prostitution and drug dealing entails interactions with people. There are a few jobs one can do behind a computer screen or in a completely isolated place, without having to speak to anyone (offshore lighthouse keepers used to have that “privilege”, but the job is mostly outdated).This is way too generalising.

And with the risk of repeating – those who confide in complete strangers out of the blue are either having very serious problems, needing immediate attention, or trying to rob you blind – one of the two. Yes, someone might confide in a physician, lawyer, teacher etc to a greater extent than normal, but that presumes they think said confidant might have valuable perspectives or advice. If you’re out of your league on certain issues you can always point them in  the right direction (someone who is specialised in their type of problem).

8. We are judged more harshly for lacking social skills and criticized for not being sentimental or warm, so we go to great lengths to present ourselves in a desirable manner in social interactions.

Perhaps 50 years ago. I don’t think that applies now. Not in western cultures anyway. Though to think of it, one is generally intimidated by someone who only shows harsh mannerisms; it’s a human instinct. Stone cold equals reptile, which equals predator. By the time you reach old age some traits are imprinted on your face. For some it happens even earlier. You see someone staring meanly, with a mouth “like a cat’s arse”, the way they put it in Scotland, and you are immediately intimidated by them.

9. We are more often criticized for swearing, talking about sex, and doing other “vulgar” things men get away with, so we go to great lengths to censor ourselves.

Not if you’re working class. But you’re not. Which says a lot, corroborated with everything else.

10. If we don’t take immediately to parenthood, want to put our kids above all else, want to be the primary caretaker, or want kids in the first place, we are made to feel like something’s wrong with us.

That’s because the middle and upper class have a certain view on parenthood which does not apply to real life. In real life, people get by however they can. In my country, many young couples go abroad to secure a higher income and leave the kids with relatives for a year or two. During communism, many children were brought up by their grandparents as the parents were always working (mandatorily). Things are difficult for many struggling families across the world – but well-to-do individuals wouldn’t understand that; they cling to the ideal situation and sometimes that’s not enough for them either.

I’d say start by not killing them. That would at least give them a chance at whatever this existence has to offer.

11. We have to justify the decisions we make about our bodies, including whether or not we wear makeup, shave our body hair, get surgery, eat salad, eat ice cream, and eat pretty much anything.

First of all, please indicate the benefits of having bodily hair as a woman. There aren’t any. Secondly, I don’t see who gives a shit about make up nowadays, unless you’re sixteen and walking about like you’re working along the harbour at midnight. Thirdly, men are judged in terms of weight just like women are. Except they might not feel so offended because they might not crave constant attention and adulation, like some women do.

I wholly agree people should leave each other alone in terms of appearance, as it’s nobody’s business what a stranger looks like at one point in time. However, I think it’s detrimental to encourage women to put themselves in a vulnerable position of being mocked (such as posing naked while morbidly obese), knowing 95% of the feedback they will get will be negative. There’s no need for that. Those women have enough humiliation on a daily basis to encourage them to expose themselves completely, in the name of progressiveness.

12. We have to justify decisions that are perceived as threats to our safety, such as drinking, walking alone at night, or being alone with men.

Being aware of the real dangers out there does not mean you have to justify anything. As an adult you are presumed to know the risks and make decisions in good conscience. The world of pink unicorns does not exist.

13. Others expect us to justify all of our sexual decisions, whether they’re deemed “slutty” or “prudish.”

How about keeping them private instead? But no, I forgot, we have to “shout our status” and show off the content of our underpants.

14. We’re expected to take part in “heart to hearts,” “girls’ nights,” and other emotionally intensive occasions that we may or may not have the energy for or interest in.

According to whom is one obligated to participate in these meetings between close friends? If you’re not keen on that, simply say no. And if you’re not keen on friends, just don’t have any.

15. We feel pressure to feign interest in “feminine” topics like beauty and fashion even if we have no interest in them whatsoever. (Masculine-presenting people experience this, too, just for other interests like sports and cars.)

What kind of pressure is that? Is there really a perceived advantage to being stereotypical? Or is this a high society issue, of being rejected by peers if one’s interests do not fit within a certain range? Anyway, claiming that this expectation “is draining” someone is really far fetched.

16. Our coworkers expect us to mediate conflicts, brainstorm ways to improve company culture, and perform other roles typically assigned to human resources.

Allow me to doubt that the perpetual complainer is ever sought for mediation – in fact, they are much more likely to start conflicts than solve them. In fact, one should see this assumption as a compliment, as it’s not a skill many people have.

17. When men explain things to us that we know as much or more about, they expect us to listen as if they are educating us in order to stroke their egos.

About this “mansplaining”.

Regarding things men do know more about, in 30 years of existence on this planet this hasn’t happened to me even once. I’ve never met a man who was keen to explain things to someone he thought knew nothing about them – and when asked to handle something they usually just do it and find it tedious to detail more than necessary. In fact, some men are annoyed if you nag them with questions about what they’re doing.

As for things women certainly know more about, which relate to womanhood directly, I haven’t noticed men starting discussions at all. Everything else is always up for debate.

Obviously, if you’re a professional being challenged by an amateur, the sex of said amateur doesn’t matter (this happens to women and men by women or men). It’s not a sex-related issue.

18. If we are dating men, people advise us to play the exhausting game of “hard to get” in order to give them the “thrill of the chase.”

And you really have to handle your dates the way other people tell you to? Are you under a microscope? Do you really have to tell everyone around you how soon you ended up in bed with your date? Or is this a high society issue again?

19. If we are in a male-dominated profession or academic field, we feel pressure to always be perfect, lest our colleagues take our imperfections as evidence that all people like us are flawed in the same way.

All people like us? That’s very vague. Oh yes, women and “femmes”. Of course, since no one really knows what a woman is anymore, things get quite complicated.

20. We are judged more harshly in the workplace and in social interactions if we don’t spend time polishing our appearances.

It depends on your line of work, really. If you’re a cleaning operative, for instance, I can say for sure you don’t need to worry about showing up in an evening gown and high heels.

21. We feel pressure to avoid looking or acting too “feminine” out of fear that people will judge us negatively, not take us seriously, or make assumptions about us.

Fear is internal. Pressure is vague and can be perceived even in its actual absence. Plus, define “feminine” as a feminist.

22. We feel pressure to avoid looking or acting too “masculine” out of fear that people will ridicule us, deem us undesirable, or distrust our gender identity.

Well, some girls suit it, whilst others overdo it and appear false to some extent. Being natural in every aspect is far better than deciding if you want to be feminine or masculine, as if you were picking a brand of ice cream. Women can be feminine in some regards and masculine in others. “Distrust our gender identity” is a new non-problem as people don’t generally question someone’s gender unless said person is making an effort for their appearance to be confusing (and certain individuals do it for fun).

23. We are judged more harshly if we don’t keep our living spaces neat, succeed at cooking and other forms of homemaking, and do a great job entertaining guests.

That has a really simple solution: either don’t invite anyone to your home, or invite only people you are comfortable with and vice-versa. Entertaining guests is not a mandate in life. Not to mention it’s a posh way to describe having someone over. Unless you have rats crawling out of tins in your kitchen, you’re probably fussing over nothing.

24. When we’re hosting people from out of town, we’re expected to not just give them a couch to crash on, but also keep the fridge and pantry stocked to their liking, show them around like tour guides, provide them with comfortable living spaces, and constantly be available to them.

Again – this seems to apply to snobs people of a certain social status, facing high demands and expectations, which have to embody perfection in everything they do. It also applies to very formal relationships.

25. We’re expected to constantly ask questions and make observations to keep conversations going, while men often get away with waiting for others to ask questions and giving one-word answers.

In a culture which makes fun of women’s chattering habit, I never really noticed them being expected to talk even more than usual. I have no idea where the author gets this from.

26. Our significant others expect us to initiate important conversations like defining the terms of the relationship, taking stock of how the relationship is going, and addressing conflicts.

Noooo, they do not. In my experience and that of those I know, it’s not something they look forward to. In fact, I’ve never been around a man who was keen on that particular conversation. And I know for a fact that they often give the cold shoulder when women insist on initiating it.

27. When we decide not to enter into a relationship, we risk being guilted for failing to reward a “nice guy” who “deserves” our affections.

 Guilted by whom? The person who expected their feelings reciprocated (which would be a natural response, although not helpful to them) or society in general? I’m not aware of any pressure western women are under regarding the partners they choose. If you want to talk about oppression in that sense, how about the women in remote parts of the world refusing arranged marriages and being killed for it?

28. When we end a relationship, we’re often demonized and blamed for not doing enough to maintain it, even if we devoted extensive time and energy to discussing problems and trying to make the relationship work.

Perhaps a source of negativity consists of this precise energy and time devoted to the discussions many men cannot stand, which women think “make a relationship work”. In fact, they do the exact opposite. I can say that from my own experience and that of others. The obsession with perfection, with “how it should be” (the ideal relationship), constantly holding grudges and grievances, can put a lot of stress on a man.

Feminism in particular encourages women to keep evaluating their relationships, looking for flaws and offences in every word, bad day, failed plan etc, down to political persuasions and opinions having nothing to do with family life.

29. We’re expected to provide our children and other people under our care with the majority of the emotional support and caretaking that they need.

If one does not feel naturally inclined to do so, they should at least be aware of the emotional consequences of refusing to, when it comes to children and teenagers, and not be surprised when they end up in dangerous situations because someone claimed to offer said support they were desperately craving (an exploiter, an abuser, a cult).

30. We’re expected to keep the peace with our cohabitants under all conditions, facilitate bonding between us and our roommates, put up with disruptive behavior, and, if we have male roommates, do the majority of the housework.

Says who?

For me personally it wouldn’t be an issue as I’ve lived in shared accommodation and would have gladly formed fraternal bonds with the people I was dwelling with, had they not been a bit (more) xenophobic towards me since the beginning. Had I been able to form friendships in that context, I wouldn’t have grudged loud music or cleaning or anything like that. Sharing one’s daily life with someone is likely to lead to bonding, if everyone is willing.

31. When we’re survivors of sexual misconduct, people sympathize with the perpetrator to the extent that we feel bad about “hurting their reputation” due to a “misunderstanding” or “ruining their lives” for reporting a crime.

Sexual misconduct is vague terminology. No one empathises with a rapist or child molester, not in western democracies anyway (except maybe people who come from different cultures). It would be useful to know what a feminist includes here. Rape is not a misunderstanding but a provable act – so I’m deducing this refers to interpretable situations, although crime is mentioned.

32. We’re expected to grit our teeth and put up with disrespectful and objectifying behavior from men because “boys will be boys.”

Whereas it can get nasty at times, women do the same to men, if not worse, nowadays. Plus, define disrespectful and objectifying. To professional offence takers, this could mean just anything at all. It could even mean a compliment.

33. In the workplace, we have to worry about presenting our ideas in a non-threatening manner so that we won’t be labeled “aggressive.”

That may apply to the corporate environment, which most women on this planet have no interaction with. I personally have never met a woman who was afraid, as a professional, to put forth an idea (for this reason anyway). Creativity is normally valued anywhere.

34. But we also have to worry about being assertive, not apologizing too much, and avoiding other behaviors that will get us labeled as “feminine” and consequently ineffective leaders.

Corporate speech again. Not everyone works in a version of The Apprentice. For the most part, it’s just humans interacting with other humans. I’ve got a bit of sad news – when dealing with assholes bent on finding flaws, they will anyway, regardless of what you do or don’t do. There’s no point trying to please an asshole; it’s impossible. The more artificial one’s attitude is in any work environment, the more they will be disliked by genuine folks.

35. Those of us with uteruses are expected to make regular doctors’ appointments, do research on birth control methods, and potentially undergo physical pain or remember a pill every day in order to ensure that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur.

If it’s in your direct interest to avoid an accident, as you would try to avoid any other accident, there is no strife in prevention. After all, a man can just walk away. It’s certainly not unheard of. A woman is left to deal with the consequences – she is therefore the most interested to make sure a pregnancy does not occur if she is certain of not wanting it. Do you remember to put your seatbelt on every time you get behind the wheel? Do you wear protective gear when the work environment demands it? If so, then why is it so fucking hard to make sure you have a condom in your possession or you take your pill regularly?

36. In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, we risk being shamed for the decision we make about it.

In case of an abortion, I’m inclined to think regret is involved more than shaming, when you’re not dealing with self-righteous street saints who threaten others with the fires of hell. In the case of single motherhood, it has become extremely common nowadays so there is little shaming if any, I would think.

37. If we have children, we’re shamed for everything from how we give birth to how we feed them.


I had to stress that as I’ve briefly come across so-called “mums’ forums”, where strangers stumble in to ask about one thing or another. The acidity  some of the questions were met with showed me in a heartbeat they can be very toxic environments, where everyone’s way is “the right and moral way” and any deviation is unacceptable or even criminal in a moral sense. People there, from what I’ve seen (though again, briefly, so I might be wrong in a general sense, but based on how niche communities operate, I don’t think I am).

It’s all about competition, about proving who is the best and most successful at their job, so to speak. To be fair, I’ve never participated in such forums. But seeing what goes on, I wouldn’t want to either. Birth and feeding are actually just two issues. Television or the lack of it, ideologies, religion, freedom, scheduling their lives to the minute etc – anything you say can be used against you. The main focus is fear of peer pressure. Fear of getting something wrong. Even in a fucked up, confused culture.

38. We’re made to worry about what we wear because there’s a chance someone will label it “slutty,” “prudish,” “boyish,” “frumpy,” or some other derogatory term used about women’s clothing.

Again, this is mainly done to women by other women. I see men focus on how women look, in terms of attractiveness, but never hear fashion-related discussions among them. Somehow I doubt they’re very interested.

39. When we go out, we’re encouraged to be hyper-vigilant by keeping our eyes on our drinks, keeping track of our friends, and taking out our keys before we get home in case we’re attacked.

So on the one hand the world is  full of street harassers and men seeking to take advantage of women, and on the other hand, those who show concern (warranted, by their own admission) for women’s safety are responsible for depleting them of emotional resources. Are women supposed to worry about rape and harassment on social media but ignore the possibility in real life? It’s really confusing.

40. During sex, we feel pressure to make artificial faces and noises and fake orgasms in order to turn our partners on and make them feel good about their sexual prowess.

Or maybe you’re watching too much porn and assume that everyone does and feels pressured to imitate it?

41. When we speak out about sexism, we have to deal with backlash and criticism for being “bitchy,” “too sensitive,” or “the PC police.”

In any given situation of thinking one has been wronged, if it’s questionable at all (and many of these reported “sexism”-related incidents are), one has to keep in mind that there’s still a chance they might be wrong about the “offender’s” reasons for certain behaviour. When non-feminists watch feminists pinpoint sexism with such certainty you’d think their conclusion had been reached in a laboratory, they have every right to distrust them. People who think they cannot be wrong are not to be trusted.

42. If we get angry, we risk being labeled an “angry feminist.”

The notion itself is repetitive. Feminism is based on resentment, anger and frustration, not to mention a victim complex.

43. If we show any emotion, we risk being used as evidence that women are emotional.

There’s nothing wrong with women being emotional; it’s a fact of life. The only women having a problem with it are denying their own nature and are trying to convey a stone block facade.

44. If we cry, we risk someone assuming it’s because we’re on our periods.

I doubt anyone but a close friend with whom banter takes place would refer to your period in any context. I don’t see it happening in public places, at work etc. I just don’t see it.

45. If we actually are experiencing physical or emotional health issues related to our uteruses, we risk being used as evidence that women are irrational.

That is very vague and I don’t see how someone’s ability to reason is affected even by emotional health problems. Being emotionally unstable does not imply being stupid. It’s more of a disconnect between the rational mind and your emotions, which does not mean the rational mind ceases to function and know wrong from right.

46. If we ask for what we want in relationships, we risk our partners labeling us as needy.

If what you want is unrealistic or something they are unable/ unwilling to provide, it might not be the right relationship or you might need to reassess whether you are indeed asking too much. Which is not impossible to do. You cannot expect others to keep adapting to your needs while you are unwilling to compromise.

47. Men we date often expect our full attention while they keep their options open and only devote as much time to us as they want to.

Women do the same nowadays. Selfish people in general do that.

48. People frequently tell us to smile and otherwise adjust our appearance and behavior to make ourselves more pleasing to other people.

I have never experienced or witnessed that. It would be patronising as fuck for an adult to be told what to do to that extent. If you’re referring to advice on how to be more successful when meeting strangers (potential employers, customers etc), seeming approachable is indeed a useful skill. Although if not sincere, a smile can turn into a very strange grimace.

50. When men try to advocate for us, even if they fail miserably and even if they hurt us in the process by promoting benevolent sexism, we’re expected to pat them on the back for their efforts and be grateful our problems are getting any attention at all.

Let’s face it. You lot will never be satisfied, no matter how hard someone tries to accommodate your bullshit. And when they do try, it obviously comes out wrong as it was an unnatural idiocy to begin with. It seems forced,contrived and overdone because it could not be any other way. It’s like trying to deal with the clinically insane and go along with their delusions; nothing that comes out of that situation makes sense, regardless of the good intentions.

For this reason, the emotional labor demanded of us exacerbates other problems women and femmes already face in the workplace, politics, and other realms. We can’t fight for gender equality when we have no energy to devote to it.

It’s funny because to me it seems feminists only have energy for feminism and anything else seems like a black hole to them.

Here’s my take on the little sense I can make out of these fifty points:

  • I want to be completely selfish in everything I do but still seem caring and considerate. Also, I want to see myself as caring (even though I analyse every contact with others through the lens of what I’m getting from it) and others had better lower their standards for me to preserve this illusion.
  • I want to be seen as a victim but to be treated as a strong individual entitled to take offence when someone alludes to my need of protection (mindfuck; I want to have my cake and eat it).
  • I could not care less about most people (all people?) but I still want them to like me, as I worry about what they might think of me in every situation (reminiscent of narcissism).
  • I am unwilling to meet anyone halfway but the entire world had better adapt to my needs.

Gossip: Small Talk For Small Minds

Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people. —Socrates



After all these years of the same old hobby, it’s a wonder they don’t suffer from professional gossip laryngitis. Every afternoon without fail, when the weather is good enough, they gather on the same bench, monitoring who goes in and out of the tenement, who they’re with, what they’re doing. On occasion, they slightly tilt their heads, as if they feared a lip reader perched up on a tree branch nearby. You hear the sarcasm in their tone, even when they manage to keep it down. The mockery, the arrogance, the righteous indignation. Oh, what a shame! What an outrage! What an embarrassment! It’s when the noise dims that you know they moved on to what  even they understand they should not be discussing; at least not in public.

They don’t read, except maybe the odd prayer book and the religious calendar, to check if they’re allowed to wash, if they should lent or do anything special. Their tired eyes are so sharp they can spot a stain on a coat from twenty metres away. The hearing, that the always moan is worsening, miraculously betters when strange noises are picked up from other people’s flats. They have all the stereotypes nailed down.  All except their own, of course.

Gossip is something society perpetuates even when generally irritated by it. Even those who hate it feed the rabid monster.

This becomes apparent  on every  “side-dish” Daily Bile Bait Mail article, laden with pics taken seconds apart, of celebrities trying to enjoy a day out at the beach. The comment section seems to scream quit this already, you superficial pricks working for this exasperating rag. They don’t understand that the marketing ploy is not based on the righteousness or meaningfulness of those “stories”, but on the number of clicks the publication manages to attract, no matter how. By bothering to sign up and comment, these people are participating, indignation and all, to the success of said rag and its paparazzi vultures.


What the rest of us need to understand about gossips it’s that their habit is never about others, but only about themselves. If they want to find you a flaw, they will – and if not, they will make one up. To give just a few examples, here’s what can come out of the mouths of the very same people, based on your circumstances.


If you don’t care much about your physical aspect, you must’ve given up on yourself or you must be a waster. If your clothes are modest, you must be too poor to afford decent ones. If you look spotless every day, you must be a narcissistic, attention-seeking whore who neglects other duties while spending too much time in front of the mirror. You probably spend too much on yourself as well.


If you’re unemployed, you are basically a deadbeat and potentially hopeless. If you have a high paying job but don’t work many hours, or otherwise they don’t think your work is stranuous enough, you probably don’t deserve all the money you’re getting. If your other half works and you don’t, you’re basically lazy and are being kept by them. If you work and your other half doesn’t, you’re an idiot for sharing your wages.


If they think you do too much for your spouse, you’re an idiot. If they think you don’t do enough, they count the days until you’re (presumably) dumped. If you divorce your spouse, unless they do something terrible (in which case you’re an idiot for having married them in the first place), you’re probably selfish and promiscuous. If you stay with your spouse despite frequent problems such as arguments, you’re also hopeless idiot. And if your spouse treats you wonderfully, to the point of making them jealous, they must have someone else on the side, because you’re nothing too special.


If you’re too permissive in their eyes, your kids are miniature monsters running a mock doing whatever they like and will grow up to be no good. If you’re strict, you’re probably selfish and impatient and don’t love them enough. If you don’t work, you’re giving them a bad example by lacking ambition in life. If you work long hours, you’re not spending enough time with them. If you had them out of wedlock, you must be promiscuous. If you decide not to have any, there’s something wrong with you.


If you tell these people too much about yourself, you’re a loose mouth, which they associate with shamelessness. If you tell them too little or nothing at all, then you have something to hide. Either way, they’ll doubt everything that comes out of your mouth and find a way to twist it to fit their narrative.

You can’t win with them. People who strive all their lives to maintain a spotless facade don’t realise that no matter what they do, they will never achieve that. A spotless facade is even more fun for them to demolish than an easy target, who doesn’t make an effort to fend them off.



An Article Justifying “Disruptive Protesting”

Here is a link to an article justifying what is referred to as “direct action”, as opposed to coherent dialogue. It is certainly interesting, after having watched many such “protests”(silently deploring the regression of human communication to howls and shrieks), to read an actual articulation of what goes on in these people’s minds when the chanting fever takes over.

As the author describes it, the drive is rooted in visceral rage and a sense of disenfranchisement, which puts people into a permanent fight mode.

A group of all-Black activists did a Valentine’s Day action in the town of Walnut Creek, a predominantly white and upper-class neighborhood with a history of white supremacist politics and ralliesWe took over local businesses to call out the names of Black people who had been murdered by the police. We demanded an end to complacency. We spent no longer than five minutes in each restaurants surrounded by white folks who refused to look at us – some plugging their ears, others calling out slurs, others mumbling that we “deserve to be shot.” None of us carried guns, none of us threatened anyone (aside from our presence as Black), and no one was harmed. That being said, the action was not “peaceful” because it wasn’t intended to be. A few days later, amidst allegations that we “bullied and harassed” people, a former peer (and aspiring police officer) sent me a long message expressing his outrage at what we had done. (…)I responded that, any time a group of Black people go anywhere to do any thing, we are automatically assumed violent or suspect. 

So in this case, the action consisted of going to a known hostile zone, where the response (even to a reasonable request, which was clearly not the case) would most likely have been negative. Going there with an entitled attitude, unabashedly not meaning to be peaceful, catching people by surprise and disrupting their day. I have a few questions, rhetorical, of course:

  • Were those business owners responsible for the killings?
  • Were the people seated at the tables responsible?
  • Is it reasonable to expect apologies for crimes you had nothing to do with, from people who didn’t commit them?
  • How would this person respond if someone barged into his business or home unannounced, with a hostile attitude?
  • Would he not feel intimidated if a group of aggressive people targeted him for any reason at all?
  • What was this supposed to accomplish in the first place?
  • What response did they realistically expect and what response would have been ideal?

You don’t need to carry guns in order to make people feel threatened, whether they are racist assholes or not. Decent people would have felt threatened as well. You can’t complain about the automatic assumption of violence right after admitting your protest was not meant to be peaceful. You can’t have it both ways.

We are not allowed to take up space, and once we do – even if it is to beg that people see us as human and stop killing us – we are infringing upon the privilege and ignorance of those who who wish to remain blissfully unsympathetic.

The people seated at the tables or running those eating venues were not killing anybody or denying anybody’s humanity. They were going about their daily business. And racist or not, anyone would react poorly to such an undeserved accusation.

Most of us shutting down city council meetings, or interrupting President Obamas press conferences, or blocking traffic to end incarceration and deportations, know what both the cost and benefits are.

I’d like to read more about the benefits and achievements of walking in on other people’s events – events which they took the time and money to organise -and diverting attention from what those gathered there were actually interested in. Why don’t they organise their own events and leave it at that? Events which don’t involve bullying and cornering others.

The days of going up to someone with a gun and nicely asking them to sop murdering our people are over. There is nothing “peaceful”about the murders of Black and Brown people – and asking folks to “remain calm and civilize” is nothing but a justification for that violence.

The answer is, therefore, indiscriminately targeting and holding responsible any person who is not Black or Brown, anywhere, with aggressive accusations of endorsing murder, and thinking this will actually solve something.

But most of the angry people I come face-to-face with are not upset about police brutality, mass incarceration, or the Charleston Massacre. They are upset that they cannot take their normal route to work or get their caramel macchiatos on time. In other words, they are being confronted with a reality they want to ignore.

In other words, they are confronted with your aggression, directed at them, without having done anything to you or anyone else. After all, why would normal, innocent people deserve to go about their day without being shamed for supposedly not caring about the problems of others? Why wouldn’t they just wallow in all the tragedy of this world (someone is being killed somewhere this very second, probably), even if there is nothing they can do about it?

If not doing anything wrong doesn’t entitle people to be left alone, why not go further and hijack weddings and funerals, like the Westboro Baptist Church?

These are folks that, when inconvenienced, not only make the extent of their frustration clear – they may also be violent and oppressive in their doing so. They have no other perspective than what their individual needs are in that moment.

What about you? Do you care at all about the chaos you are causing for no discernible purpose; do you care about the people you are disturbing, about their troubles and reason to be where they are, about their right to live their lives, to work, to speak etc?

There is a collapse of empathy in the people who spit at, yell at, and physically threaten people who are literally fighting for our right to live.

The only violence, verbal and physical, that is shown in recordings of such protests, comes from protesters themselves. If I may just mention a talk Ben Shapiro gave this year at a university, having to be escorted in through the back door, while a crowd was blocking the entrance, preventing participants from going inside and actually beating them up. Unable to stop the event, they set off the fire alarm

To condemn protestors (who destroy shit or not) as violent not only shows a lack of connection to their agony; it also shows me that folks don’t understand what violence is or isnt.

May I point out that when someone near you is smashing up anything in their immediate proximity, with blind rage, there is nothing – nothing – guaranteeing you wont be next, simply for being there? May I also point out this has repeatedly happened? Is it OK to just smash things out of anger? If one person doing so might be understandable, can anyone see how fifty or a hundred joining in is dangerous and destructive? Aren’t we supposed to be better than animals? I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to everyone.

As for what is or isn’t violence, please click on the link in the quote; you will be amazed by the sheer idiocy. Apparently, looting isn’t violence as it’s experienced by inanimate objects, not human beings. As if those objects were placed there by mother nature and not by some bewildered fucker who sees his property destroyed or stolen just because it was in the way of angry people. What kind of bar does this set for the intelligence of those who engage in looting or rioting? How can it be excusable to smash up someone’s car just for being parked in the wrong place at the wrong time? Human beings might not be physically harmed by this (unless they harm themselves after their livelihood is ruined), but human beings will have to foot the bill for this “righteous indignation”. Someone will have to clean up their mess in the morning.

This is fucking unbelievable.

Violence has been used to colonize, enslave, sexualize, and destroy communities of color and other oppressed people for centuries. Asking a people who have long been the targets of violence to “calm down and be peaceful” is oppressive and silencing.

And in the name of what empires and slave traders have done, we have to break into a T-shirt store, smash a hot dog stand and a Chinese takeaway to pieces. And if we’re strong enough, a few street signs too. A troubled teen with carnage fantasies might’ve been the victim of violence as well, perhaps all his life. But when he takes a rifle to school, asking him not to shoot innocent people in the name of his stifled suffering is not asking too much.

You cannot simply harm anyone and break anything you come across because you form part of an oppressed minority. Innocent people deserve all the protection and consideration imposed by common sense.